Critical principles – the limitation of knowledge and
possibility; assumptions of radical criticism

Construction principles – even if certain knowledge were
possible, what would be the point to certain knowledge unless it were possible to use it for transformation. But then what
would be the value of the transformation? Certain knowledge of the essentials
is not given, therefore action and transformation –of both knowledge and being–
are not only necessary but possessed of greater meaning

Holism – this point is not an argument against analysis;
rather the point will provide a framework for analysis. The principle is that a
picture of the universe of all being as a whole is useful, not only for its own
sake in that it is good to understand and know the nature of the universe of
all being, but because it requires interactive analysis of the details and is
thus a simultaneous check on the picture of the whole and of the details. The
picture of the whole is a metaphysics – every being has an implicit one and,
further, there are values to an explicit metaphysics even if it is in error for
it is only by having one that it can be corrected [the argument that metaphysics
is at all possible is given elsewhere]

Conceptual synthesis: analyzing or reasoning with
compound systems – as we’ve seen, the metaphysics is a picture of the world
and, so, has many interacting elements. Since the elements interact, they cannot
be properly analyzed in isolation: proper analysis of each element requires
simultaneous analysis of other elements, the system
must be analyzed as an interactive whole. In thinking about the system, i.e. in
analyzing it, what are we to do with the problem of analyzing a number of
unknowns or partially unknowns simultaneously? I.e., in exploring new territory
by means of concepts or ideas, the concepts will be hypothetical in nature and
there will be a number of them. In some cases explicit analytic – algorithmic –
techniques may be developed for simultaneous analysis. This is not always the
case. Then it is useful to withhold judgment on the nature of the conceptual
elements of the system. The process of analysis would then be piecewise and
iterative; as the process continues, often a number of concepts that were
originally disparate become coherently connected in intuition – intuition is
trained to view compound concepts as unitary and, then, analysis may proceed at
a more integrated level. I.e., we make a mental construct and use it without
committing to it for the use of the constructs, individually and as a system,
will permit us to make inferences about the validity of the constructs and the
possibilities of the whole system. Further, it is a way to learn, not only
about validity, but also about the power of the system – i.e. how much does the
system subsume. The following paragraph continues this discussion

Synthesis and analysis with a system of metaphysics and its
elements; analyzing issues within the system. It is required to analyze not
only the universe and its elements but also to use and simultaneously analyze
the elements of understanding of the universe and its elements. The elements of
understanding include the systems of human knowledge and its component
disciplines. Experience and, usually, time is required to acquire understanding
of the ‘disciplines.’ Additionally it is required to synthesize the elements.
This requires pictures (hypotheses) of the whole, of the elements and their
interactions. This is an interactive system. In the process of analysis and
synthesis, the picture of the whole and of the elements
change. For example, evolutionary biology may suggest mechanisms /
understanding for indeterministic
processes in general which may be useful in analyzing the whole and the
resulting change in the whole picture may, in turn, have implications all the
components. In addition to the standard elements, new levels of understanding
may be introduced such as the normal, the standard divides; and new concepts
may be introduced at all levels. A project of this magnitude is not a project
of a week or even a year but is a significant project for a lifetime or, at
least, a significant portion of a life; it is required for hypothetical
constructs to acquire ‘life’ and then, if they should be found inadequate, to
fade or die while new ones are born. Thus it was that Plato suggested that the
study of philosophy should not begin until the age of fifty – this was
undoubtedly a form of tyrannical utopianism and unnecessarily rigid for it
seems to be that the rejection of earlier learning is a significant source of
great thought; yet reasons for Plato’s suggestion are clear in the foregoing
discussion. Thus, the analysis of both metaphysics and component issues –the
sub-disciplines as well as individual issues– includes a form of DIALECTIC
within the mind of the thinker. The interacting elements of the dialectic are
the systems of understanding and the component disciplines and issues; it
should be remembered that the elements enter thought as dynamic, i.e. they
should not be thought of as altogether fixed or stable and, in addition, the
thinker will introduce personal dynamic elements of which those that survive
criticism may enter the mature system. The thinker will cultivate the art of
holding ideas in his or her mind, sometimes for years, without commitment. It
may be years before there is comfort with making assertions… A special form of
dialectic is DEBATE or conversation regarding which
there are formal forms and fashions; all may have utilities, even verbal or
physical attacks may be spurs to creative thought; however, conversation or
debate is, in itself rather than in its consequences, perhaps most fruitful
when the following aspects are included: identification of issues, assertion in
hypothetical mode, speaking in turn, silence and reflection, review of the
status of discussion, analysis and synthesis…

Sources

My sources – general as in this document and various others;
specific as in how to think about mind in JOURNEY IN BEING

An example is the claim that cognition is for knowing.
Others are: cognition is for action; function has the unique meaning of
‘purpose’ and does not mean ‘dynamic;’ and that there is a root distinction
between purpose and dynamics. Is there such a root distinction? If the entities
of physics were absolute entities, their dynamics would be a pure dynamics
un-tinged of necessity by purpose i.e. though deployable to purposeful ends
such as knowing, the dynamics would not be essentially purposeful. However if
the entities of physics are, in some sense, fictions –even though useful and
effective in understanding– their dynamics is a function and one would not say,
merely, that their dynamics has a function

There is a frequent tendency among philosophers to identify
some system of understanding as the only and necessary system to the exclusion
of other systems. In fact, one way to do this is to not say, ‘This is the one
and only system!’ but to say nothing; regarding the question except to identify
the system with the real and to interpret importance and everything important
with the system. Examples: 1. Heidegger’s ready-to-hand as more fundamental
that the present-at-hand as if flow is necessarily more fundamental than
hesitation, as if meaning lies in paradise but the creation or origination of
meaning lies in hell. 2. My idea that the function of cognition is not knowing but is action, i.e. that cognition has a
function in the sense of purpose. 3. Wittgenstein’s position that analysis of
meaning is not a case of use. 4. Common-sense philosophy. In its origin,
common-sense philosophy was a reaction to the extreme skepticism of Hume and
the subjective idealism of Berkeley that seemed to issue from an excessive
stress on ideas. Thomas Reid and others held that for the average
unsophisticated man, sensations are not mere ideas but correspond to qualities
belonging to external objects. (The distinction between the unsophisticated and
the reflective man is, perhaps, unfortunate because all men have a pre- or
sub-reflective element that is, perhaps, prerequisite for reflection.) Then G.
E. Moore convinced many British and American philosophers that the business of
philosophy was to analyze but not to question common certainties. This is based
on an untenable distinction between reflective and un-reflective thought. It is
not being said that there is no distinction. The distinction is that
un-reflective thought is somehow pristine. That whoever is reflective is not
engaged in common thought. (Note the one-upmanship interpretation of all such
philosophies; the implication that the common man is uncritical, that other
philosophers are even worse than uncritical, and that it is only the criticism
of the common-sense philosopher that is truly critical.) Also note that the
restatement of common-sense philosophy that there is a common, given core of
unquestionable belief does not salvage common-sense philosophy for it is
unquestioned that there is a practical core of belief but what is questioned is
that the core projects to the ultimate. At the same time, it is incumbent on
the critics of common-sense philosophy that it is possible to project beyond
the realm of the common core. This is initially possible because the common
core is itself, in fact open to question and not at all definite even within
its own realm and it is in fact pure romanticism to suppose that even within
that realm the common core has anything like conditionally absolute status

The cultural Brahmins are those who define the language of
discourse and thus define the world within which we live (metaphysics,) set its
values (morals, economics,) and imperatives (politics, political agendas)

The following account, possibly apocryphal, explains the
origin and significance of the phrase, ‘cultural Brahmins.’ The Brahmins of
India, as is well known, are said to be the highest of the classes of caste
under the Brahmanic system. The Brahmins are followed in rank by the Kshatriyas
(warriors, rulers,) Vaisyas (merchants, traders, farmers,) Sudras (artisans,
laborers, servants and slaves,) and the ‘untouchables’ (those with the most
defiling occupations.) What is the source of this system? No doubt, the system
had a certain stability; however, stability is not the same as the good for the
system, regardless of merit, is abusive – practically and of common human
worth. What determines the ‘highest’ caste? As the priests, scholars and
scribes it is the Brahmins who wrote the Brahmanic system. Thus they define
themselves as the highest; further, in that system it is the priests who deal
salvation in this life. On the other hand the Kshatriya regarded themselves as
highest but this was not written

Who are the cultural Brahmins of our societies? The question
becomes complex in a democracy where the center of power is not as well defined
as it is in other systems. The question I ask here is a simpler one. Who are
the Brahmins of knowledge? They are the academics and the intelligentsia. There
is no question. As the Brahmins of knowledge they write many scripts. But the
most fundamental script is that the function of cognition is knowing. And this
is the source of much misplaced emphasis and confusion. Because those who
cultivate knowing are also writers and educators, knowledge becomes overvalued
at the expense of be-ing, of action, of realization, and of transformation.
Thus our society lives in a state of violent arrest. It is a stable arrest. But
it is in the nature of value to distinguish ends from actualities. Clearly I am
here promoting my own interest. But I say that there is no ultimate system of
value. Therefore, promotion and reason remain in balance; there is no getting
outside the world. The world is all there is. The arrest addresses the misplaced
emphasis. What is the confusion to which I earlier alluded? It is that the
cultivation of knowledge as an intrinsic value is knowledge’s own
embarrassment. In asking too much of knowledge, doubt is cast upon even the
possibility of knowledge; the understanding of the nature of knowledge becomes
twisted

There is a sense in which there are no ultimate principles
of thought; and if there are, it may well be that they are always in discovery.
At the outset, principles of thought are no more than ‘here are some ways of
thought that have been found useful in developing results that have been found
to have some validity’

However, the following codes arise

General vs. specific principles; a general principle would
apply, for example, to all rational thought while a specific principle would be
useful in logic, or in mathematics, or in metaphysics, or in philosophy of
mind, or in building a house

Thought as a community enterprise; this explains the function of
the obvious and helps explain the nature of proof and that there is in general
no absolute proof and this in turn explains the rational function of the
resistance to change: that since there is no absolute proof, what has been
found useful needs some guard against arbitrary change

Since thought is part of being, the understanding of being may (in principle and does in fact) have implications for
thought

The philosophy of science (generally epistemology) has,
through its history, gone through a number of turns and it is useful to look to
these as well as to the practice of science to understand the philosophy of
science

What are the ways of expressing philosophy of science?

Content: validity, ‘formal’ method and its evolution

Communal or institutional practice… the way science is done, the
informal practices productive (and sometimes counterproductive) of good science
including the implicit rules that many or the majority of scientists and
scientific organizations follow that safeguard against ‘anarchy’ in the face of
the fact that, in the end, good science is what has survived (not only due to
utility but also because of the fact that it refers to reality which is what
makes it testable because in referring to reality there is the possibility that
what is predicted about reality is not so.) These rules include resistance to
new ideas that violate established paradigms

What are the sources of information for philosophy of
science?

The above

Science in general and the different disciplines – physics,
chemistry, biology, geology, psychology, sociology and so on

That science is applicable

The structure of science: experiment, data and fact, law,
concept-theory-explanation-understanding (as seen below, a theory is not a
‘mere theory’ and while it does necessarily apply to all being, a good theory
captures the essence of a phase of being, i.e., of experience

The evolution of scientific theories – including the revolutions

The evolution (evolution does not have a necessary connotation
of progress) of philosophy of science

From which follows the tendency of a philosophy of science
to be a characterization rather than a complete specification

Various philosophies of science: Greek, Bacon… 20th
century: Popper-Lakatos-Feyerabend-Kuhn… and the focus on progress

But focus instead of progress on the content (some of the
following is repetition)

Since it cannot be absolutely correct, science must have
institutional safeguards, implicit rules, against ad hoc change (therefore
Galileo’s assertion that new theories become accepted only when the old guard
dies is not necessarily the reproach that might have been intended)

A scientific theory is about a phase of being; a good one
captures the essence of a phase of the real. We can therefore think, instead of
a theory being a mere approximation, as being, within limits of precision,
capturing the essence of a phase of the real; a problem, then, is to be able to
specify that phase with respect, for example, extent, scale and so on. In this,
a theory has an analogy with the definition in mathematics of a function that
requires not only specification of the image of every point in the domain but,
also, specification of domain and range

In the development of the metaphysics, ‘Principles of
Thought’ does not deserve a separate section. However, it maybe practically useful to assign a
section to the principles

Note. This section was originally
developed independently. It is placed here (1) because it naturally fits under ‘Object,’
(2) because thought is not distinct from being and, so, what is true of all
being is true of thought, and (3) since this is the best place for analysis of
the principles which, unless it is shown, may never be regarded as completed

Comment. This section may be made a part of the previous
section, ‘Theory of Knowledge’

Introduction

Comment. Insert into the introductory discussion that
rationality, like all fundamental terms is transitional rather than fixed in
its meaning and rather than merely being an accumulation of principles such as
Socratic objectivity through dialectic and many sided reflection includes the
fundamental human components of patience, boldness, flexibility,
reflexivity, feeling and commitment

The objective is to analyze, to think about effective
thinking. Since thought and what is seen (perceived) have a mutual basis, the
title could be ‘Principles of Cognition.’ Since there is a special focus on
synthesis of theories and systems, another possible title is ‘Principles of
Synthetic Thought.’ This brief introduction lays the ground for the systematic
development that follows

One source for ‘principles of thought’ is to examine
examples and principles from the history of thought and action and in
day-to-day activities. Surely, however, reflection on the principles should
include the following

Asking, ‘what is thought and what are the functions of
thought?’ That is, ‘to what ends may thought be applied?’ Since it is not clear
that there is a fixed set of functions or ends, the question of the principles
may well be open ended. An obvious though not always mentioned enemy of clear
thinking is impatience, the impulse to come to a conclusion before ‘all the
information is in’ and, since I am interested in synthesis, a variety of
explanatory systems have been considered. However, it often seems that all the
information is never in and, since there are numerous sources and levels of
explanation, conclusions will always be tentative to some extent – unless, of
course, that it can be shown that the conclusion is final. There is a variety
of useful though usually not final ways in which conclusions can be examined
and ‘cross examined.’ Has the issue been examined from all perspectives, have
explanations been checked for consistency and for the ability to explain or
predict new results? Is the explanation or theory ‘minimal’ in some sense – if
it is, it is testable otherwise the ‘slack’ in the theory may allow it to be
adjusted to fit new information. Is there a modification of the explanation which,
in contrast to previously, neatly –this shows the role of the aesthetic in
explanation and theory formation– allows it to satisfy minimality,
consistency, explanation and prediction?

There are some obvious limits to the discussion thus far.
The idea that all the information is never in reflects the progressive aspect
of, especially, science; yet the fact that modern science, just over four
hundred years old in 2006, remains in progress does not mean
that an end to science in the sense of completion is impossible for all
scientific disciplines. Another limit lies in the fact that not all thought is
directed to depth, maturity, and inherent validity. Often, thought serves the
needs of immediate action. In a crisis there may be time for at most brief
reflection before action; however, even in crisis, there is often time enough
to balance the need to act with restraint. Additionally there are occasions for
thought where the imperative to act lies in between philosophic reflection and
crisis – examples are planning and applied science; in such cases there is
often enough time to spend some effort to determine how much time to devote to
each of the different stages of the thought process. It may seem that in pure thought,
e.g., philosophic reflection, there is an ultimate separation of thought and
action but only in the sense that the production of thought is not pressed by
the need to act and not in the sense that the thought will have no consequences
in action. However, in view of the origins of thought, it is not clear that
this is inherent in the nature of thought or that it is always possible. I have
discussed this question in further detail (link) but it may be noted (1) that
the possible inseparability of thought and action is not a practical one but
inherent in their nature and (2) the impression that they have ultimate
separation may be based in illusions about the nature of thought rooted in the
idea that thought is distinct from the body and encouraged by the degree of
success of human thought, perhaps only apparent, and the separation of some
aspects of human thought from action. One way of viewing this issue is to
remember that thought is not distinct from being and that, at root, the origins
and process of both thought and being have or may have similarities which
include that the processes are not deterministic and that the essential or
normal mode of indeterministic process is, in both cases, incremental variation
(imagination) and selection (criticism.) I have deployed this analogy elsewhere
for its suggestive power and to see to what degree it may be the basis of
demonstration

In the discussion so far the following may be noted. Thought
appears to have limitations which include (1) limits that occur when there is a
limited amount of time available for thought, and (2) essential limits to
thought. The distinction between the two kinds of limit is not clear for, on
the view that science is unending, the resulting limit
is both temporal and essential. However, the idea that
things-are-not-known-in-themselves is an essential limit. These kinds of
limits, essential or otherwise, have often been thought of as absolute.
However, as discussed above and elsewhere the idea that such limits are true
limits is dependent on the question of the kind and nature (and function) of
knowledge… Thought is reflexive in character, i.e., thought may question its
own nature and specific thought
processes and outcomes. When not carried out to excess, reflexivity of thought
is positive, i.e., productive of valid thought. Reflexivity of thought includes
the critical function. However, is it possible and productive to be critical of
criticism? I.e., does criticism reign, as is often taught, as supreme in the
production of valid thought? To answer this question, consider that thought,
especially, synthetic thought produces
results. If all that thought did was to recount what was already known there
would be re-production but no production. A function of thought is the
production of new ideas and results! Criticism and reflexivity alone are
insufficient to the production of anything new; for newness, new ideas must be
formed andor old ideas must be put together in new ways. I.e., hypotheses must
be formed. There appears to be no linear approach to the production of
hypotheses – imagination is necessary: there is a constructive side to thought.
However, note that the approach to criticism thus far has been imaginative;
similarly, imagination is most productive when informed but not controlled by a
critical attitude. That is, in practice imagination (construction, hypothesis
formation) and criticism are most effective in combination; however, the degree
and sequence of combination is variable, not generally rationally determined,
and depends on the stage and kind (pure, applied, crisis…) of thought

From supplement

This section must be short and necessarily incomplete. I
intend only to make a few remarks on some principles that I have recognized
as useful in my thought and in the works of others. It is not intended to be
exhaustive with regard to possibility and history (the Socratic approach,
dialectic and synthesis, reason, scientific method, various philosophical
methods, e.g., the various transcendental approaches…) In
this section thought is regarded as given. I.e., the topic of discussion is not
primarily the nature of thought. It is ‘how to think well’ and this includes
primarily critical and constructive thought and, secondarily, economy of
thought and quality of expression. The nature of thought and its place in
cognition and, more generally, in the life of mind, is taken up later (link.)
Thought has often been regarded to be a ‘symbolic process.’ However, as will be
seen, this is inadequate because (1) the analysis of the meaning of symbols
involves iconic processing in such a way that the boundary between symbol and
icon (ideal object) is not clear and (2) the result of directed thought in the
limited sense may often be achieved by iconic processing (further, symbolic
thought is often the final formulation of iconic thought; and, often, full
cognitive processing requires both iconic and symbolic modes)

But what is the role of thought, i.e., of ideation in general?
Is the role of thought defined by the loop

thought®
action,

or the loop,

thought®
knowledge ®
action,

which is a special but important case
within direct transition from thought to action?

Because of the ‘no ultimate foundation’ principle,
principles have no end; therefore we must go on… Because of the ‘no limit’
principle, we may go on; and in this is the greatest meaning… Note, though,
that the idea of never ending discovery has two bases, (1) the history of
thought and science which reveals new ideas and theories improving upon old
ones and (2) the idea that the magnitude of the number of facts in the universe
exceeds the (human) ability to represent facts. However, if (1) is applied to
itself, it is seen that regardless of how strong a principle it represents,
that principle is not absolute. Let us assume that (2) is true in the sense
that the number of facts and the ability to represent is defined in terms of
raw bits of information. However, since the structure of all being is not a
mere collection of bits of information, it does not follow that (knowledge of)
all aspects of being are subject to this limitation. That the object of thought
is not a mere collection of bits, permits the
formation of concepts which may be thought of as summary representation of
large amounts of information by a smaller quantity of information. The Theory
of Being (link) is an example of a final theory the perspective that views the
universe as all being

Some examples of the application of the principles are
applied in the following discussion

Construction and
Criticism

First Principles

The limitation of
knowledge and possibility; assumptions of radical criticism; reflexivity

Philosophy, analysis and the Theory of Being

What are the critical principles? Since thought, rather cognition
as a whole, is deployed in the representation of the universe (of experience)
the critical principles must, in outline, concern (1) the structure of thought
(internal criticism: reason including logic) and (2) the relation of thought to
experience (analysis of meaning or, in the case of abstract systems,
interpretation; and prediction and experimental test)

The assertion that analysis of meaning lies entirely in
establishing the connection of thought to experience is not altogether accurate
for meaning has two sides, sense and reference. It is more accurate, then, to
rewrite the two points of the previous paragraph as (1) the structure of
thought (analysis of sense or, in the case of abstract systems, interpretation;
and internal criticism or analysis of thought: reason including logic) and (2)
the relation of thought to experience (analysis of reference; and prediction
and experimental test)

Thus, analysis includes analysis of meaning and of thought.
When it is claimed that philosophy is analysis, where is the external component
of criticism? It lies in the experience thus far of the philosophers and the
cultures within they live. When an analyst asserts that meaning is determined
in use what becomes the role of the analysis of sense? The importance of use is
clear, there is no support for meaning outside of the
system of users and their lives. However, as I have argued (link) analysis of
sense remains significant and occurs neither at the outset nor at some
strategic stage of development of a system of ideas but in ongoing interaction
with use. Limitations to the idea that use determines meaning are (1) some
thinkers appear to think that there is a ‘common man’ whose usage
determines all use and that the thinker is not engaged using words in attempts
to analyze and encompass new domains, (2) use is always ‘use thus far’ and
analysis of meaning is one of the tools, perhaps dating to before the time when
the Shaman was the master of meaning, in the progression of use (without which
we might still be stones.) Generally, then, philosophy as analysis and the
reduction of analysis of meaning to use is reasonable only when restriction is
made to experience thus far which may enter into analysis either implicitly or
explicitly

As an example of the analysis of meaning, consider the discipline of philosophy. Two approaches
to its ‘definition’ are possible. In the first, one may
say ‘Philosophy is…’ and fill in the empty space with the result of one’s
reflections. In the second, one is more interested in BEING, in our
relation to and understanding of it. Instead of saying early, ‘philosophy is…,’
one waits until reflection is mature and can look back and say, ‘That is
philosophy, that is metaphysics, …, that is physics… and so on.’ Naturally,
what happens in actuality includes a combination of these two approaches.
However, the definition of philosophy is often an attempt to characterize a
particular emphasis and style of philosophy. To what extent is this valid? It
would be valid if one could look back at the philosophy of the past and say,
‘This is what the philosophers of the past should have been doing. It is what
they would have been doing if only they had (for example) the critical insight
that we have now achieved.’ However, the following are clear. (1) The emphasis
on critical thought depends on a view of the nature of the knowledge and a
value system that are mutually sustaining in the establishment of their
validity and (2) The Theory of Being shows that although the foregoing views
have a range of validity, that range is limited and that there is an inclusive
space in which philosophy is about being and modes of being and not merely
about traditional modes of knowing which include the emphasis on analysis. It
is significant that the Theory of Being, while it could have basis in the
intuition and mystic experience e.g. the union of the self and all being, has
been developed in logical form

As examples of reflexivity, whenever I ask, ‘What is x?’ or ‘What is the nature of x?’ where x is
something of interest (typically a concept), I may also ask, ‘What is the
nature of questions such as What is
something? ’ I.e., when seeking to define a concept, it is useful to
remember that the nature of definition and the nature of concepts are not given
and, therefore, to also ask or to recall what may be involved in the questions
‘What is defining?’ ‘What are concepts?’ (See link) Additionally, since the
meanings of the terms in a system of concepts regarding some topic are
typically mutually dependent it is often productive to question the meanings a
number of the concepts at the same time. In extending the system of what may be
called ‘common thought’ it appears to be the rule rather than the exception
that meanings are fluid rather than given and the attitude that meanings are
fixed is naturally self-limiting. Lets continue to
review the meaning of ‘philosophy.’ Since the system of
disciplines are in dynamic interaction, their provinces cannot be given
for all time. However, among the factors that define the boundaries of the
disciplines are administrative convenience and ‘territorial’ issues. There is
no compelling reason for the concept of philosophy to be identical to the
dominant practice of philosophy within academia. It is occasionally useful for
physicists to reflect on the nature of their discipline and, especially at
times of transition, to reflect on the meanings of the fundamental physical
concepts. The reflective physicist may find the reflections instructive.
However, physicists may resent being instructed on the nature of physical
concepts by a professional philosopher. The resentment may be valid when the
philosopher has insufficient appreciation of the nature of physical theory and
the problems that occasion reflection on the concepts. However, such reflections
may still be properly labeled ‘philosophical’

Here are some examples, taken from the essay, of the power
of being clear about meaning. The term ‘universe’ has a number of connotations.
When a physicist uses the term he or she typically refers to the known physical
universe. However, in this essay, I usually use the term to mean ‘all being’ or
‘outside of which there is nothing.’ Therefore, if a creator is distinct from
the creation, it follows that the universe cannot have a creator. However, it
is possible for a part of the universe, e.g. a cosmological system, to have a
creator. It does not follow, though, that a creator will be god-like or
person-like or think through the design of the cosmological system. The ‘act’
of creation may be ‘blind,’ e.g., by proto-physical forces and elements. It may
be similarly concluded that while all LAWS are immanent in the universe they
are not necessarily so for a cosmological system where some combination of
immanence and imposition may obtain. The idea of the universe as all being is
not a mere concept, i.e., the definition is not arbitrary. In the first place,
the conclusions regarding creation and immanence of laws show that the
definition has significance. Now consider the concept of a ghost universe: a
separate universe that exists but does not interact with others. I have shown
(later: link) that there are no ghost universes or particles. Therefore, the
idea of the universe as all being is rooted in the fact that there is no part
of being that is in permanent isolation (however, relative isolation is
possible as are ghost-like universes and particles.) I initially felt
uncomfortable with the idea of the universe as all being. The discomfort was in
part due to the various other connotations and uses of the term ‘universe.’ A
conceptual problem with the idea of the universe as all being was the question
whether I should mean ‘all being at a slice or instant of time.’ What is all being? This, in turn, led to an
analysis of the uses and possible uses of the word ‘is’ and the concept(s) of
time. Thus, analysis of the meaning of one term often requires the co-analysis
of the meanings and uses of other terms; and the total process requires
experiment with tentative meanings before a more satisfactory system is
achieved. A mark (perhaps the mark) of a satisfactory system is that the system of concepts dovetail and introduce coherence and
fresh understanding (including prediction) to the discussion of the topic, e.g.
BEING.
Thus, especially in their development, conceptual systems reveal both fluidity
and structure

Let us be reflexive with regard to criticism, i.e., be
critical of the idea of criticism. The objective is to evaluate the role of
criticism, not to reject it. It is worthwhile criticizing or evaluating the
role of criticism only if the critical approach has value; this is granted as
obvious. What, then, may be criticized regarding criticism? (1) The idea of
pan-criticism – that criticism should be ever present that criticism is the
master of all thought. In considering the loop, thought ® action, there will be cases of
crisis and of opportunity when criticism is impossible or at most partial
criticism is possible. In considering the loop thought ® knowledge ®
action, for reliability of knowledge criticism is required. However, crisis and
opportunity still arise and shall we refrain from acting to avert crisis or to
make use of opportunity just because we have not been able to subject knowledge
to full critical analysis? Clearly, outside the academic world there are roles
for belief and faith, especially non-religious faith. Inside the walls of
academia, it may be possible, at least in some disciplines, to maintain an
illusion of absolute rigor. However, I have argued (link) that absolute rigor
(certainty) is possible only in trivial (though not unimportant) cases. (2) The
idea that critical thought produces anything new. There are critics of
‘newness,’ the idea that thought does anything other than illuminate what is
already there or implicitly known. When this view is pushed to an extreme, its
conclusion is not that we are essentially
primitives but that we are rocks and stones. To finite beings, there is
‘something new under the sun.’ When I have achieved infinite-hood, I may
reflect that I am all that nothing is or can be new. Yet, I am (we are)
multi-dimensional and it is conceivable that I may achieve infinite-hood in
some dimensions but remain, tentatively, quite finite in others. Until I am or
realize Brahman, there are new realms of thought and being. Is it within the
power of strictly critical thought to produce
a new idea? It is clearly possible for criticism to encourage the production of new ideas. It is possible for a
strictly critical thinker to apply criticism to the imagination of others or to
ideas originating in his or her own unconscious… but it is outside the realm of
pure criticism (in practice there is no such thing) to produce anything new. In
polite society a speculation is called an hypothesis.
However, there is more than politeness involved for there is an exquisite
combination of imagination (hypothesis) and restraint (criticism) that is
fertile in the production of new ideas that have application in the world of a
somewhat finite being. In the present case reflexivity, i.e., criticism applied
to the application of critical thought shows that critical thought is powerful
but only in combination with hypothesis (imagination, constructive or
speculative thought)

Principles of Construction, Synthesis or
Hypothesis

Even if certain knowledge were possible, what would be the
point to certain knowledge unless it were possible to
use it for transformation. But then what would be the value of the
transformation? Certain knowledge of the essentials is not given, therefore
action and transformation –of both knowledge and being– are not only necessary
but possessed of greater meaning. Use of context; cross-fertilization across
examples, levels of theory…

While hypothesis and criticism are essential to productive thought (cognition,)
hypothesis has often been thought to be non-existent or, at most, an inferior
partner in discovery. The evaluation of this situation is complex and it is not
my interest to make a final
diagnosis. However the diagnosis may be, simply, that critics and dreamers are
many, but those who effectively combine dreaming (imagination, hypothesis) and
criticism are few

Criticism (argument) is a public endeavor,
imagination is relatively private except in such realms as art and poetry…
Therefore, it is difficult to lay down ‘principles’ of imagination. However, I
make an attempt. (1) Valuing imagination and dreams is important but (2)
Imagination without reflection (criticism) produces nothing. The following is a
metaphor. I dream and wake up; my dream colors my wakefulness: what is its
significance? I must wait for criticism and insight rather than prematurely
reject my dreaming

Obviously, hypothesis and criticism are, in combination,
crucial in the life of thought; just as variation and selection are essential in becoming

A balance between suspended judgment or criticism, culture
and application of intuitive judgment in the generation of hypotheses, and
careful formal or explicit judgment is most excellent in constructing effective
concepts, explanations, theories and arguments (including showing, persuading,
demonstration and proof)

Some aspects of construction: living with imagination,
simultaneously subjecting it to criticism without allowing its destruction;
allowing depth and breadth and color to enter into imagination; dreams:
allowing dreams to influence but not necessarily determine thought, allowing reverie; waiting till the time for
criticism is ripe; and, most importantly, seeking a delicate interaction of
hypothesis (imagination, speculation – without which there is nothing) and criticism
(without which there is nothing of value)

What is a ‘transcendental’ method? A typical approach to
explaining a the characteristics of some actual or
concrete situation is to proceed from fundamental principles. In a
transcendental method it is the context or situation that is given and one asks
‘What must be true of the fundamental principles or of the universal context so
that the particular context may obtain?’ In philosophy, transcendental approach
has been used to analyze the nature of knowledge (link: sources, this essay).
The Theory of Being developed in this essay has transcendental elements. The
so-called ‘anthropic cosmological principle’ that has been used in modern
science is transcendental in nature

On
experience… While ‘nature’ is the prime source of experience in the
sciences, it has become regarded as marginal to philosophy (in the analytic and
humanistic modes.) However, the experience of nature remains relevant, even to
analytic and humanistic philosophy, since there is a deep connection between it
and analysis and humanism. Additionally, as has been seen (link), the idea that
discussion of any aspect of the world is forbidden in philosophy is not
philosophy. Analysis is an important tool and humanism an important emphasis in
philosophy but analysis and humanism do not constitute philosophy. While the
‘data’ for the sciences comes from nature and while nature may also provide raw
data for philosophy, the disciplines themselves, and thought are among the
elements of data for philosophy. Since, philosophy is a discipline and since
the conduct of philosophy requires thought, philosophy is reflexive. In this
way, philosophy is distinct from numerous other disciplines. While the other
disciplines may not be reflexive, it may often be useful to reflect on their
nature. Such reflections may be philosophical

On independence, academia
and originality… Writing at a time just after the beginning of the
twenty-first century A.D., it seems that most serious work in philosophy and
the disciplines occurs within academia. This is in part due to the technical
nature of much academic work including philosophy that requires much
preparation. It may be further due to the proliferation of universities in the
twentieth century A.D. The appearance also be due to
the immense volume of publication required for career success in the academic
world. However, it was not so long ago that much ‘great’ work was done outside
academia or at the edges of the academic world. Revolutionary work, especially,
has the potential to be done at some distance from the centers of scholarship.
A healthy independence from the pressures of the academic world may often
produce immature work but, at the same time, has the potential for
revolutionary thought. Knowledge of a range of ideas, combined with a
cultivation of independence and criticism is an excellent preparation for
constructive thought. This idea has general application, i.e., it may also
apply within academia. In any group setting, including the academic
environment, there is a tendency to rules regarding what may be thought. I
speak here not of moral rules but of rules whose intent is to keep thought
within proper bounds of validity. The intended function of such rules may be to
reflect the framework of paradigmatic thinking or to guide students in their
learning process; however, in looking at the history of ideas, many such rules
reflect what, at least in retrospect, may be labeled fashion. Relative to constructive
thought some balance is necessary between following and breaking such normative
rules of thought; however a balance is not possible without testing the
boundaries. Even while there are thoughts which may not be worth speaking there
is no thought that needs immediate abortion without regard to its consequences
and, further, when thoughts are not spoken the reasons should have some,
perhaps intuitive, appeal to their worth rather than reflecting exclusive
dependence on rules

Reflections on
impossibility… The following is relevant to the possibility or
impossibility of claims made in the Theory of Being. Is it impossible for the
sun to rise in the west? All factual impossibility is based on expectation that
the world will continue to behave as it always has! Therefore, the only necessary
impossibilities are logical. An example: ‘It is impossible for Albert to be in
two places at once’ is a factual claim. However, ‘If it is impossible for human
beings to be in two places at once, then it is impossible for Albert to be in
two places at once’ is a logical claim. What is often thought to be logically
impossible is the result of reasoning (logic) and claims of factual
impossibility. However, as shown by the Theory of Being, every claim of
impossibility that is not based in contradiction should be, at most, a claim of
improbability

The following is relevant to the possibility of developing a
Theory of Being or Metaphysics. Attaining the
impossible is impossible; however, many things thought to be impossible have been subsequently achieved. The history
of thought and action reveals that many accomplishments in ideas and action
were previously regarded as factually and even logically impossible. There is
frequent confusion between physical impossibility (impossibility in terms of
the known behavior of the known universe) and logical impossibility (universal impossibility;) and, both kinds of impossibility are
imperfectly understood. The history of thought shows that the latest science
and the latest developments in logic are commonly, even in academia, taken to
be final – until their limits are demonstrated by the next development.
Education and other cultural forces inculcate the feeling of absoluteness
regarding core cultural beliefs and, therefore, the feeling that there is some
external arbiter of the real. However, reflection shows that there is no
external arbiter but only the latest or, preferably but ambiguously, the peak
of human achievement. Claims of impossibility are based in a model or picture
of the use or application of thought and or language. However, such pictures
are also open to criticism. When no assertions regarding a topic are possible
at one level of description, they may be possible at another, e.g. ‘meta,’
level. Criticism should apply also to itself, i.e., non-reflexive criticism is
likely to be poor criticism and, sometimes, no better than no criticism. Or,
generally, criticism is not an angry activity – not one to be profitably
carried on with a frown; even while emotion may be a spur to action, it seems
that passion for thought and being are most productive of healthy thought and
criticism…

Explanation in Light of the Theory of Being

The Theory of Being provides new insight (a new approach) to
explanation. The basis of the insight is the identity of possibility, necessity
and actuality shown earlier

There are (at least) two sources to knowledge of what is
possible: experience (observation) and imagination (and analysis or criticism
whose function is to uncover contradiction.) Correspondingly, there are two
modes of explanation: (1) describing and demonstrating a mechanism such as
variation and selection for evolution and (2) giving meaning to what is
possible though perhaps not known through direct observation such as giving
meaning to the idea of ‘being that is a span of being’ through the concept of
identity. The first mode of explanation provides understanding; the second mode
may be a substitute for mechanical understanding when it is not available or
not necessary and may be a motive to develop understanding

On System

‘System’ refers to systematic thought, systematic
philosophy, philosophical or metaphysical systems. System has been criticized
as impossible on various grounds. Essential
impossibility – the impossibility of knowing the noumenon. Incompleteness – the essential
incompleteness of (human) knowledge. Relativism
– that any system must be framed in terms of some viewpoint, some picture of
the way the world is. Weakness – the
urge to systematic philosophy is a weakness of the intellect or of character. Excesses of rationality – that ignore
the variety of limitations on rationality and the suppression of feeling.
Criticism of tired old ideas brings freshness, a sense of power but systems or
schools of criticism are also subject to critical analysis, to over-formulation,
to ritual repetition and decay. The impossibility of knowing the noumenon is
based on a picture of cognition as is the essential incompleteness of
knowledge; additionally the historical incompleteness of knowledge is also
based on a continuation of a series. The ‘urge’
to system is weakness only if it excludes chaos, feeling and the experience of
chaos and feeling. For relativism to be a criticism it must be shown that there
is a limited view point; and, then, it is a criticism only if there is
insistence on the resulting system as final, without the possibility of change
or alternative. Rationality is only in excess if it does not recognize its own
dual limitation as an instrument of cognition and as a mode of being… The cosmos, the human body is both system
and chaos. Criticism exists only because there is something to analyze;
criticism has a purpose or function on the ground that construction has a
purpose – but what is construction but the construction of some system? Clearly
construction has function though not necessarily a unique and final function;
the lack of any will to system is not a weakness but an absence of character;
construction and criticism may exist in balance and in adventure; until the
pursuit of being (knowing) is at an end there will be no final conclusion – and
then there will be no need for conclusion. In this essay, the reader will find
a number of systems and viewpoints: being vs. becoming then becoming as being;
the individual
vs. being then being that spans all being; reason vs. feeling then the
synthesis of feeling and cognition; the construction of system, its absorption
into life – my life, dissatisfaction, abandonment, feeling a way in balance
between chaos or dissolution and unity, vision of new perspectives, search for
clarity and completeness and a possible end to perspectives, then on again to
life itself – to being in the moment… The example of Wittgenstein who abandoned
his early systematic and depth based atomic analysis of the world for the
piecemeal and (by his own proclamation) surface analysis of his later thought
is illuminating. It is actually the common reflections on Wittgenstein’s
progression of thought that is illuminating: it is taken that the history of
his thought and no other is taken as a paradigm of critical analysis.
Rationally, the name ‘Wittgenstein’ has no relevance it is the thought that
counts; then, the ‘two Wittgensteins’ are but two examples of styles of thought
among others both past and future…

Conceptual Thought: the Concept

Purpose: the nature of the concept
is analyzed elsewhere (link); the objective here is to analyze the use
of concepts in thought: how concepts are used in synthetic thought is implicit
in the following descriptions

Developing the
Principles of Thought

How Should the Principles of Thought be Developed?

Reflexivity: the principles of thought apply to
developing the principles

Examples: from the History of Thought; from personal
reflection; collection of examples

Context: perception and thought are part of being and
must therefore partake of the character of being. In the transitional phase or
perspective of being, change is built upon structure, or from the void,
sometimes preceded by dismantling or devolution, by indeterministic or (once
structure exists) semi-indeterministic change and population of the universe by
systems with a population that is clustered around the optimum combination of
numbers generated and fraction surviving; in ‘ultimate’ phases, or in a
supra-temporal perspective, kinds of completeness are possible

Sources

From supplement

My sources – general as in this document and various others;
specific as in how to think about mind in JOURNEY
IN BEING

It has been proposed that certain forms of thinking call on
one's abilities to assemble and organize information. The result of such
thinking satisfies a defined goal in the achievement of an effective solution
to a problem. These forms are called convergent thinking and become apparent
when situations arise in which one's ability to cope with a task demands
resources beyond the explicit stimuli presented; i.e., converges the
components of one's past and present experience in organizing or directing
one's response

Experimental approaches

In studying thinking experimentally, investigators often use
standardized tasks that have measurable outcomes; for example, a human subject
(say, a young child) may be shown three levers—one black, the other two white.
Initially, the standard task may be for the child to discover that for pulling
the black lever he will receive some reward (perhaps something good to eat) but
that for pulling either white lever he will get no reward at all. Orderly
procedures are established under which experimental changes can be introduced
to observe their effects on the thinker's performance. The results are compared
with those obtained under a standard control condition without the changes

Among the variables that can be manipulated are the amount
of information available to the individual (e.g., the black lever may
also be illuminated); the kind or degree of incentives under which he works (e.g.,
a larger or better tasting reward); the order or arrangement of objects (e.g.,
black lever in the middle or on the right); the instructions provided; the
subject's familiarity or degree of prior experience with the task; and the
stress under which he functions, such as punishment for mistakes or the threat
of failure. The thinker's personality characteristics provide another set of
variables for study; for example, subjects who typically exhibit high levels of
anxiety can be compared in their task performance with those who ordinarily
show little anxiety; or the performance of a person who shows a compelling need
to achieve success can be compared with that of a person who exhibits strong
fears of failure

Research results indicate that any condition that increases
the complexity of a task requiring convergent thinking tends to make the
solution more difficult and time-consuming. The more multiple choices (e.g.,
ten levers instead of three) a thinker is offered, the more difficult the
solution of the task is likely to be. Irrelevant items of information, such as
the illumination of all levers, may complicate a problem; and as irrelevant
data become more numerous or as relevant information becomes less accessible to
or discoverable by the thinker, the solution becomes more difficult

Finding a solution is helped by providing the thinker with
cues, guidelines, rules, or other appropriate ways of orienting himself toward
the problem (e.g., he may be pointed toward the right lever).
Performance is uncertain to the degree that the individual must discover these
directions by his own efforts. When separate cues must be combined (e.g.,
the colour of the lever and the presence or absence
of illumination), the more suitable they are for the required relationship, the
more efficient the process of solution tends to be

Conditions that increase the thinker's motivation, such as
incentives and special instructions, tend to improve performance. A person's
response to these conditions, however, depends on his personality
characteristics; very anxious people typically show particularly impaired
performance when the task is difficult or stressful. An important consideration
is the set (or expectation) of the person; a person's tendency toward
rigidity—inability to adapt readily to changing conditions of the task—is
likely to have adverse effects on his performance. Instruction or special
training that aids one in overcoming his prior sets fosters his ability to
achieve correct solution

Realistic thinking may be aided or hindered by the
individual's strategies and cognitive or perceptual style. Such characteristics
include the way a person attends to and uses sensory information; he may, for
example, focus on inessentials, may fail to observe details accurately, or may
be disturbed by complexities in the task stimuli. Also important to convergent
thinking are the individual's abilities to analyze and
to synthesize sensory information

Realistic thinking tends to be elicited when the individual
perceives no obvious or immediate path to a desired goal. It is likely to begin
with his recognition of a problem—otherwise, his behaviour
would simply indicate the operation of habits or the automatic production of
responses. Realistic thinking continues with one's consideration of
alternatives, each marked by some uncertainty or risk. He next begins
processing information (including pertinent past experience) by analyzing, combining,
and organizing available and potential resources for reaching his goal. In the
final phase of the process he produces a response; it may be a wrong solution,
a partial solution, or a correct solution. Recycling of these phases
(recognition, considering alternatives, processing data, and responding) may
continue in a complex way until the goal finally is reached or until the
process ends in failure

The explicitness of these phases varies with the complexity of
the task, as well as with the problem-solving skills of the individual. In this
connection, the individual may show evidence of “learning how to learn”; that
is, he may exhibit a progressive increase in skill as he encounters a series of
similar problems

A simple form of realistic thinking that lends itself well
to controlled experimentation is inferred from one's ability to discriminate
discrete objects or items of information (e.g., distinguishing a lion
from a tiger). The outcome is a judgment, and the process may be called decision making. The availability of information, the rate
at which it is presented, the set (expectancy) of the judge, and the number of alternatives available to him influence the
efficiency of his judgment. Redundancy (or surplus) of information facilitates
judgment; for example, the lion may be discriminated on the basis of a number
of different sensory cues: he is tan or brown, he lacks stripes, he has a mane, and so on

Within what is called the general theory of adaptation
level, the decision-making response is considered to be a weighted average of
various stimuli: focal (the specific sensory properties of the lion and tiger),
contextual (the background in which they are observed), and residual (such
intrinsic or experiential factors as memory for other brown or striped
objects). Variations in one or more of these three types of stimuli shift the
judge's decision in one direction or another in relation to his immediately
preceding judgment

Concept attainment

A more complex form of realistic thinking is inferred when
an individual is asked to identify or use a class of items, as in
selecting several different kinds of triangle from an array of other geometric
figures. The individual may proceed to link together in his thinking a newly
experienced group of objects according to one or more of their common
properties. He thus may be able to give them a general name, as in first
learning the meaning of the term triangle, or he may determine whether a newly
given object fits a category he already knows. Physical objects are
multidimensional; that is, they may vary in shape, size, colour, their location in relation to other objects,
their emotional significance, or their connotative meaning. How a person
identifies such dimensions, develops hypotheses (or tentative conclusions)
about which of the specific dimensions define a class, arrives at the rules of
class membership, and how he tests various hypotheses all reflect his ability
to grasp concepts. Successful performance in all these processes leads to his
formulation of pertinent rules based on his ability to classify specific items
(see concept
formation)

6.2Problem solving

Still more complex forms of realistic
thinking seem to occur when tasks are presented in which the goal is impossible
(or very difficult) to achieve directly. In such situations, people commonly
appear to pass through intermediate stages of exploring and organizing their
resources; indeed, one may first need to exert himself in understanding the
problem itself before he can begin to seek possible directions toward a
solution. Familiar examples of problem-solving tasks include anagrams (e.g.,
rearrange “lpepa” to spell “apple”); mathematical
problems; mechanical puzzles; verbal “brain teasers” (e.g., Is it legal for a man to marry his widow's sister?); and, in
a more practical sense, design and construction problems. Also of interest are
issues of human relations, games, and questions pertinent to economics and
politics

Trial and error

Problem-solving activity falls
broadly into two categories: one emphasizes simple trial and error; the other
requires some degree of insight. In trial and error, the individual proceeds
mainly by exploring and manipulating elements of the problem situation in an
effort to sort out possibilities and to run across steps that might carry him
closer to the goal. This behaviour
is most likely to be observed when the problem solver lacks advance knowledge
about the character of the solution, or when no single rule seems to underlie
the solution. Trial-and-error activity is not necessarily overt (as in one's
observable attempts to fit together the pieces of a mechanical puzzle); it may
be implicit or vicarious as well, the individual reflecting on the task and
symbolically testing possibilities by thinking about them

In striving toward insight, a
person tends to exhibit a strong orientation toward understanding principles
that might bear on the solution sought. The person actively considers what is
required by the problem, noting how its elements seem to be interrelated, and
seeks some rule that might lead directly to the goal. The insightful thinker is
likely to centre on the problem to understand what is needed, to take the time
to organize his resources, and to recentre on the
problem (reinterpret the situation) in applying any principle that seems to
hold promise

Direction and flexibility
characterize insightful problem solving. The thinker directs or guides his
steps toward solution according to some plan; he exhibits flexibility in his
ability to modify or to adapt procedures as required by his plan and in
altering the plan itself. Both characteristics are influenced by the thinker's
attitudes and by environmental conditions. If, for example, the task is to
empty a length of glass tubing of water (without breaking it) by removing wax
plugs about a half-inch up the tube from each end, and the only potential tools
are a few objects ordinarily found on a desk top, the usual appearance and
functions of such common objects may make it difficult for the problem solver
to see how they can be adapted to fit task requirements. If a paper clip is
perceived as holding a sheaf of papers in the usual way, such perception would
tend to interfere with the individual's ability to employ the principle that
the clip's shape could be changed: straightened out for
use in poking a hole in the wax

A special form of problem
solving employs formal, systematic, logical thinking. The thinker develops a
series of propositions, often as postulates; e.g., the shortest distance
between two points is a straight line. He builds a structure of arguments in
which statements are consistent with each other in reaching some goal, such as
defining the area of a triangle. This kind of logical, mathematical reasoning
applies formal rules in supporting the validity of successive propositions

Both inductive and deductive
processes may be used by a problem solver. In inductive thinking one considers
a number of particular or specific items of information to develop more
inclusive (or general) conceptions. After aspirin was synthesized, for example,
some people who swallowed the substance reported that it relieved their particular
headaches. Through induction, the reports of these specific individuals
were the basis for developing a more inclusive notion: aspirin may be helpful
in relieving headaches in general

Deduction is reasoning from
general propositions—or hypotheses—to more specific instances or statements.
Thus, after the general hypothesis about the effectiveness of aspirin had been
put forward, physicians began to apply it to specific, newly encountered
headache cases. The deduction was that, if aspirin is generally useful
in managing pains in the head, it might also be helpful in easing pains
elsewhere in the body. Although a person may deliberately choose to use
induction or deduction, people typically shift from one to the other, depending
on the exigencies of the reasoning process

Students of problem solving
almost invariably have endorsed some variety of mediation theory in their
efforts to understand realistic thinking. The assumptions in that kind of
theory are that implicit (internal) representations of experience are stored in
and elicited from memory and are linked together during the period between the
presentation of a stimulus and the implementation of a response. Those
theorists who prefer to avoid the use of unobservable “entities” (e.g.,
“mind”) increasingly have been invoking the nervous system (particularly the
brain) as the structure that mediates such functions

6.3Creative thinking

Divergent (or creative) thinking
has been defined as an activity that leads to new information, or previously undiscovered
solutions, rather than to a predetermined, correct solution (as in convergent
thinking). Some tasks call for flexibility, originality, fluency, and
inventiveness, especially for problems in which the individual must supply his
own, unique solution. The “problem” might be a personal, emotional difficulty
that needs resolution or expression

A number of processes or phases
have been identified as typical of creative thinking. In what logically would
be the first phase (i.e., preparation), the thinker assembles and
explores his resources and perhaps makes preliminary decisions about their
value in solving the problem at hand. Incubation represents the next period, in
which he mulls over possibilities and shifts about from one to another
relatively free of any rigid rational or logical preconceptions and
constraints. Incubation seems to be at least partly unconscious, proceeding
without the individual's full awareness. Illumination occurs when resources
fall into place, and a definite decision is reached about the result or
solution. Verification (refinement or polishing), the process
of making relatively minor modifications in committing ideas to final form,
follows. Often enough, objective standards for judging creative activity
(e.g., musical composition) are lacking; an important criterion is the
emotional satisfaction of the creator. Although the four phases have been
ordered in a logical sequence, they often vary widely and proceed in different
orders from one person to the next. Many creative people attain their goals by
special strategies that are not neatly describable

The phases of preparation,
incubation, illumination, and verification are characteristic of creative
thinkers generally but do not guarantee that a worthwhile product will ensue.
Results also depend on whether an individual has the necessary personality
characteristics and abilities; in addition, the quality of creative thinking
stems from the training of the creator. The artist who produces oil paintings needs
to learn the brushing techniques basic to the task; the scientist who creates a
new theory does so against a background of previous learning. Further,
creativity intimately blends realistic (objective) and autistic (subjective)
processes; the successful creator learns how to release and to express his
feelings and insights

Creative thinking is a matter of
using intrinsic resources to produce tangible results. This process is markedly
influenced by early experience and training. School
situations, for example, that encourage individual expression and that tolerate
idiosyncratic or unorthodox thinking seem to foster the development of
creativity

While the processes of creative
thinking in artistic and scientific pursuits have much in common, there are
also distinctive differences. The artist places more importance on feeling and
individual expression, often going to extremes to divorce himself from
environmental constraints. The scientist relies more on disciplined, logical
thinking to lead him in new directions. Artistic endeavour
is dominantly expressive (although clearly oriented toward a goal), while
scientific inventiveness is dominantly disciplined (although flexibly receptive
to feelings and to imaginative experiences)

It might be supposed that
greater efficiency should be achieved if several people collaborate to solve a
problem than if only one individual works on it. Such results are by no means
invariable

Although groups often may increase
the motivation of their members to deal with problems, there is a
counterbalancing need to contend with conflicts arising among members of a
group and with efforts to give it coherent direction. Problem solving is
facilitated by the presence of an effective leader who
not only provides direction but permits the orderly, constructive expression of
a variety of opinions; much of the leader's effort may be devoted to resolving
differences. Success in problem solving also depends on the distribution of
ability within a group. Solutions simply may reflect the presence of an
outstanding individual who might perform even better by himself

Although groups may reach a
greater number of correct solutions, or may require less time to discover an
answer, their net man-hour efficiency is typically lower than that achieved by
skilled individuals working alone

A process called brainstorming has been offered as a method of facilitating
the production of new solutions to problems. In brainstorming, a problem is
presented to a group of people who then proceed to offer whatever they can
think of, regardless of quality and with as few inhibitions as can be managed.
Theoretically these unrestricted suggestions increase the probability that at
least some superior solutions will emerge. Nevertheless, studies show that when
individuals work alone under similar conditions, performance tends to proceed
more efficiently than it does in groups

Under special circumstances,
however, a group may solve problems more effectively than does a reasonably
competent individual. Group members may contribute different (and essential)
resources to a solution that no individual can readily achieve alone; such
pooling of information and skills can make group achievements superior in
dealing with selected problems. Sometimes social demands may require group
agreement on a single alternative, as in formulating national economic or
military policies under democratic governments. When only one among several
alternative solutions is correct, even if a group requires more time, it has a
higher probability of identifying the right one than does an individual alone

One difference between problem
solving by a group and by an individual is the relative importance of covert or
vicarious processes. The group depends heavily on verbal communication, while
the individual, in considerable degree, attacks the problem through implicit,
subjective, silent activity

…traditionally, the three fundamental laws of logic: (1) the
law of contradiction, (2) the law
of excluded middle (or third), and (3) the principle of
identity. That is, (1) for all propositions p, it is impossible for
both p and not p to be true, or symbolically, ~(p
~p), in which ~ means “not” and  means “and”; (2) either p or ~p
must be true, there being no third or middle true proposition between them, or
symbolically p
~p, in which 
means “or”; and (3) if a propositional function F is true of an
individual variable x, then F is indeed true of x, or
symbolically F(x) F(x), in which 
means “formally implies.” Another formulation of the principle of identity
asserts that a thing is identical with itself, or (x) (x = x),
in which means “for every”; or simply that x is x

Aristotle cited the laws of
contradiction and of excluded middle as examples of axioms. He partly exempted future contingents, or statements about unsure future
events, from the law of excluded middle, holding that it is not (now) either
true or false that there will be a naval battle
tomorrow, but that the complex proposition that either there will be a naval
battle tomorrow or that there will not is (now) true. In the epochal Principia
Mathematica (1910–13) of
A.N. Whitehead and Bertrand Russell, this law occurs as a theorem rather than
as an axiom

That the laws of thought are a sufficient foundation for the
whole of logic, or that all other principles of logic
are mere elaborations of them, was a doctrine common among traditional
logicians. It has been shown, however, that these laws do not even comprise a
sufficient set of axioms for the most elementary branch of logic, the
propositional calculus, nor for the traditional theory of the categorical
syllogism or the logic of terms

The law of excluded middle and certain related laws have
been rejected by L.E.J. Brouwer,
a Dutch mathematical intuitionist, and his school, who
do not admit their use in mathematical proofs in which all members of an
infinite class are involved. Brouwer would not
accept, for example, the disjunction that either there occur ten successive 7's
somewhere in the decimal expansion of  or else not, since no proof is known of either
alternative; but he would accept it if applied, for instance, to the first 10100
digits of the decimal, since these could in principle actually be computed

In 1920 Jan Lukasiewicz, a leading member of the Polish school of logic, formulated a propositional calculus that had a third
truth-value, neither truth nor falsity, for Aristotle's future contingents, a
calculus in which the laws of contradiction and of excluded middle both failed.
Other systems have gone beyond three-valued to many-valued logics—e.g.,
certain probability logics having various degrees of truth-value between truth
and falsity

There were four
classic laws of thought recognised in European thought of the
seventeenth and eighteenth century, which held sway also during nineteenth
century (while subject to greater debate). They were:

·the
law of noncontradiction;

·the
law of excluded middle ;

·the
principle of sufficient reason; and

·the
identity of indiscernibles

In this
formulation they are due to Leibniz. In the approach of Continental rationalism
in general, these are supposedly clear and incontestable axioms

The first two are
from Aristotle and scholastic logic; the other pair are Leibnizian principles.
As turned out to be the case with another such (the so-called law of
continuity), they stand for matters which, in contemporary terms, are subject
to much debate and analysis (respectively on determinism and extensionality).
In a sense that marks what happened in logic in the nineteenth century and
particularly after Frege (who was much influenced by these formulations). Such laws
were supposed to be of basic, pedagogic value, rather than challenges to the
intellect. This attitude only dropped out some time early in the twentieth
century, as can be seen by Bertrand Russell's allusion to them in a 1911 work
(at which point there were three)

The laws of
thought were particularly influential in German thought; in France the
interpretation of the Port-Royal Logic tended to dispel their mystique.
Hegel quarrelled with the law of indiscernibles while putting together his own
'logic' — but as a current matter rather than an obsolete issue

The title of
George Boole's 1854 treatise on logic, An investigation on the Laws of
Thought indicates a fresh start. These laws are now part of boolean
logic; where the first two on the list come down to saying there are two and
only two truth values. The second pair are ignored, at the algebraic level,
absent second-order logic

2. Hypothesis. Suggest a plausible answer (a
definition or definiens) from which some conceptually
testable hypothetical propositions can be deduced.

2. Hypothesis. Suggest a plausible answer (a theory)
from which some empirically testable hypothetical propositions can be
deduced.

3. Elenchus ;
"testing," "refutation," or "cross-examination."
Perform a thought experiment by imagining a case which conforms to the definiens but clearly fails to exemplify the definiendum, or vice versa. Such cases, if
successful, are called counterexamples. If a counterexample is
generated, return to step 2, otherwise go to step 4.

3. Testing. Construct and perform an experiment which
makes it possible to observe whether the consequences specified in one or
more of those hypothetical propositions actually follow when the conditions
specified in the same proposition(s) pertain. If the experiment fails, return
to step 2, otherwise go to step 4.

4. Accept the hypothesis as provisionally true. Return to
step 3 if you can conceive any other case which may show the answer to be
defective.

4. Accept the hypothesis as provisionally true. Return to
step 3 if there other predictable consequences of the theory which have not
been experimentally confirmed.

Socrates was a man of the Periclean age, which witnessed one of the periodic
“bankruptcies of science.” Cosmological speculation, which had been boldly
pursued from the beginning of the 6th century, seemed to have led to a chaos of
conflicting systems of thought. The Rationalist Parmenides
of Elea had apparently cut away the ground from science
by showing that the real world must be quite unlike anything that the senses
reveal and that, consequently, the interpretation of the world by familiar
analogies is inherently fallacious; and his pupil Zeno
of Elea seemed to have shown that even the postulates of mathematics are
mutually contradictory. Thus, the ablest men, such as the Sophists
Protagoras and Gorgias, had turned away from the
pursuit of science and concerned themselves not with truth but with making a
success of human life

Socrates, as a young man, was enthusiastically interested in
“natural science” and familiarized himself with the various current systems—with the Milesian
cosmology with its flat Earth and the Italian with its spherical Earth and with
the mathematical puzzles raised by Zeno about “the unit” (i.e., the
problem of continuity). There was a complete lack of critical method. For a
moment, Socrates hoped to find salvation in the doctrine of Anaxagoras that “Mind” is the source of all cosmic order
because this seemed to mean that “everything is ordered as it is best that it
should be,” that the universe is a rational teleological system. But on reading
the book of Anaxagoras, he found that the philosopher made no effective use of
his principle; the details of his scheme were as arbitrary as those of any
other

After this disappointment, Socrates resolved from then on to
consider primarily not “facts” but logoi, the “statements” or “propositions” that one makes about “facts.” His method
would be to start with whatever seemed the most satisfactory “hypothesis,” or
postulate, about a given subject and then consider the consequences that follow
from it. So far as these consequences proved to be true and consistent, the
“hypothesis” might be regarded as provisionally confirmed. But one should not
confuse inquiry into the consequences of the “hypothesis” with proof of its
truth. The question of truth could be settled only by deducing the initial
“hypothesis” as a consequence from some more ultimate, accepted “hypothesis.”

According to Plato, Socrates next proceeded to take it as
his own fundamental “hypothesis” that every term (such as “good,” “beautiful,”
“man”) that has an unequivocal denotation directly names a selfsame object of a
kind inaccessible to sense perception and apprehensible only by thought. Such
an object Socrates calls an Idea or Eidos;
i.e., a Form. The sensible things on which a man predicates beauty,
goodness, humanity, have only a secondary and derivative reality; they become
this or that for a time, in virtue of their “participation” in the Form

Scholars in the 19th century usually assumed that this doctrine
of Forms was consciously devised by Plato after the death of Socrates. The
chief argument for this view is based upon the observation of Aristotle that
Socrates rightly “did not separate” the universal from the particular as, it is
apparently implied, Plato did. He might equally have meant, however, that the
doctrine of the Phaedo does not itself involve
the kind of “separation” to which he objects in the Platonic theory. On the
other side, the doctrine is expressly said in the Phaedo
to be a familiar one, which Socrates “was always” repeating; and, if untrue, it
is hard to see what could be the point of such a mystification and harder to
understand how Plato could have expected it to be successful, especially as
most of the personages of the Phaedo were
certainly still alive. If true, however, one must be prepared to admit the
possibility that he is also reproducing the thought of Socrates in the Symposium and Republic,
in which he speaks of a supreme Form, that of Beauty, or Good, the vision of
which is the far-off goal of all intellectual contemplation. Unfortunately, no
complete separation of the Socratic and the Platonic is possible

Logical methods

On the logical side, both Plato and Xenophon bear out the
remark of Aristotle that Socrates may fairly be credited with two things: “inductive arguments” and “universal
definitions.” The “universal definition” is an attempt to formulate precisely
the meaning of a universally significant predicate—i.e., to apprehend
what the Phaedo calls
a Form. And it is from the practice of Socrates, who aimed at the clarification
of thought about the meaning of moral predicates as the first indispensable
step toward the improvement of practice, that the theory of logical division
and definition, as worked out by Plato and Aristotle,
has arisen

The “inductive arguments” mean the characteristic attempts
to arrive at such formulations by the consideration of simple and striking
concrete illustrations, the perpetual arguments about “shoemakers and
carpenters and fullers,” which the fashionable speakers in Plato profess to
think vulgar. Induction, on this view of it, is not regarded as a method of
proof; its function is that of suggestion: it puts the meaning of a proposed
“definition” forcibly and clearly before the mind. The justification of the
definition, then, has to be sought in a consideration of the satisfactoriness
of the “consequences” that would follow from its adoption. Socrates himself
sought for his “definitions” principally in the sphere in which he was most
interested: as Aristotle says, he concerned himself with the “ethical,”
character and conduct, both private and public, not with “nature” at large

A dialogical method
of inquiry, known as the Socratic method or method of elenchos,
largely applied to the examination of key moral concepts and first described by
Plato in the Socratic Dialogues. For this, Socrates is customarily
regarded as the father and fountainhead for ethics or moral philosophy

11.2Method

The Socratic
method is a negative method of hypotheses elimination, in that better hypotheses
are found by steadily identifying and eliminating those which lead to
contradictions. The method of Socrates is a search for the underlying
hypotheses, assumptions, or axioms, which may unconsciously shape one's
opinion, and to make them the subject of scrutiny, to determine their
consistency with other beliefs. The basic form is a series of questions
formulated as tests of logic and fact intended to help a person or group
discover their beliefs about some topic, exploring the definitions or logoi
(singular logos), seeking to characterise the general characteristics
shared by various particular instances. To the extent to which this method is
designed to bring out definitions implicit in the interlocutors' beliefs, or to
help them further their understanding, it was called the method of maieutics.
Aristotle attributed to Socrates the discovery of the method of definition and
induction, which he regarded as the essence of the scientific method. Oddly,
however, Aristotle also claimed that this method is not suitable for ethics

Practice

A skillful
teacher can teach students to think for themselves using this method. This is
the only classic method of teaching that was designed to create genuinely
autonomous thinkers. There are some crucial principles to this form of
teaching:

·The
teacher and student must agree on the topic of instruction

·The
student must agree to attempt to answer questions from the teacher

·The
teacher and student must be willing to accept any correctly-reasoned answer.
That is, the reasoning process must be considered more important than facts

·The
teacher's questions must expose errors in the students' reasoning or beliefs.
That is, the teacher must reason more quickly and correctly than the student,
and discover errors in the students' reasoning, and then formulate a question
that the students cannot answer except by a correct reasoning process. To
perform this service, the teacher must be very quick-thinking about the classic
errors in reasoning

·If
the teacher makes an error of logic or fact, it is acceptable for a student to
correct the teacher

Since a
discussion is not a dialogue, it is not a proper medium for the Socratic
method. However, it is helpful -- if second best -- if the teacher is able to
lead a group of students in a discussion. This is not always possible in
situations that require the teacher to evaluate students, but it is preferable
pedagogically, because it encourages the students to reason rather than appeal
to authority

More loosely, one
can label any process of thorough-going questioning in a dialogue as an
instance of the Socratic method

11.3Application

Socrates
generally applied his method of examination to concepts that seem to lack any
concrete definition; e.g., the key moral concepts at the time, the virtues of piety,
wisdom, temperance, courage, and justice. Such an
examination challenged the implicit moral beliefs of the interlocutors,
bringing out inadequacies and inconsistencies in their beliefs, and usually resulting
in puzzlement known as aporia. In view of such inadequacies, Socrates
himself professed his ignorance, but others still claimed to have knowledge.
Socrates believed that his awareness of his ignorance made him wiser than those
who, though ignorant, still claimed knowledge. Although this belief seems
paradoxical at first glance, it in fact allowed Socrates to discover his own
errors where others might assume they were correct. This claim was known by the
anecdote of the Delphic oracular pronouncement that Socrates was the wisest of
all men

Socrates used
this claim of wisdom as the basis of his moral exhortation. Accordingly, he
claimed that the chief goodness consists in the caring of the soul concerned
with moral truth and moral understanding, that "wealth does not bring
goodness, but goodness brings wealth and every other blessing, both to the
individual and to the state", and that "life without examination
[dialogue] is not worth living". It is with this in mind that the Socratic
Method is employed

The motive for
the modern usage of this method and Socrates' use are not necessarily
equivalent. Socrates rarely used the method to actually develop consistent
theories, instead using myth to explain them. The Parmenides shows
Parmenides using the Socratic method to point out the flaws in the Platonic
theory of the Forms, as presented by Socrates; it is not the only dialogue in
which theories normally expounded by Plato/Socrates are broken down through
dialectic. Instead of arriving at answers, the method was used to break down
the theories we hold, to go "beyond" the axioms and postulates we
take for granted. Therefore, myth and the Socratic method are not meant by
Plato to be incompatible; they have different purposes, and are often described
as the "left hand" and "right hand" paths to the Good and
wisdom

Typical Application in Legal Education

Socratic method
is widely used in contemporary legal education by many law schools in the
United States. In a typical class setting, the professor asks a question and
calls on a student who may or may not have volunteered an answer. The student's
answer stimulates other students to offer their own views, thus generating a
wide range of opinions and exposing the strengths and weaknesses of each

The answers
usually become increasingly refined as each is built upon the previous ones.
Then the professor moves on to the next question, often without authoritatively
answering the first one, and so on. It is important to understand that
typically there is more than one "correct" answer, and more often, no
clear answer at all. The primary goal of Socratic method in law schools is not
to answer usually unanswerable questions, but to explore the contours of often
difficult legal issues and to teach students the critical thinking skills they
will need as lawyers

The class usually
ends with a quick discussion of doctrinal foundations (legal rules) to anchor
the students in contemporary legal understanding of an issue. For this method
to work, the students are expected to be prepared for class in advance by
reading the assigned materials (case opinions, notes, law review articles,
etc.) and by familiarizing themselves with the general outlines of the subject
matter

12.1Affective Strategies

S-1 Thinking Independently

Principle: Critical thinking is independent thinking,
thinking for oneself. Many of our beliefs are acquired
at an early age, when we have a strong tendency to form beliefs for irrational
reasons (because we want to believe, because we are praised or rewarded for
believing). Critical thinkers use critical skills and insights to reveal and
reject beliefs that are irrational.

In forming new beliefs, critical thinkers do not passively
accept the beliefs of others; rather, they try to figure things out for
themselves, reject unjustified authorities, and recognize the contributions of
genuine authorities. They thoughtfully form principles of thought and action;
they do not mindlessly accept those presented to them. Nor are they unduly
influenced by the language of another.

If they find that a set of categories or distinctions is
more appropriate than that used by another, they will use it. Recognizing that
categories serve human purposes, they use those categories which best serve
their purpose at the time. They are not limited by accepted ways of doing
things. They evaluate both goals and how to achieve them. They do not accept as
true, or reject as false, beliefs they do not understand. They are not easily
manipulated.

Independent thinkers strive to incorporate all known
relevant knowledge and insight into their thought and behavior. They strive to
determine for themselves when information is relevant, when to apply a concept,
or when to make use of a skill. They are self-monitoring: they catch their own
mistakes; they don't need to be told what to do every step of the way.

S-2 Developing Insight Into Egocentricity or Sociocentricity

Principle: Egocentricity means confusing what we see and
think with reality. When under the influence of egocentricity, we think that
the way we see things is exactly the way things are. Egocentricity manifests
itself as an inability or unwillingness to consider others' points of view, a
refusal to accept ideas or facts which would prevent us from getting what we
want (or think we want).

In its extreme forms, it is characterized by a need to be
right about everything, a lack of interest in consistency and clarity, an all
or nothing attitude ("I am 100% right; you are 100% wrong."), and a
lack of self-consciousness of one's own thought processes. The egocentric
individual is more concerned with the appearance of truth, fairness, and fairmindedness, than with actually being correct, fair, or fairminded. Egocentricity is the opposite of critical
thought. It is common in adults as well as in children.

As people are socialized, egocentricity partly evolves into sociocentricity. Egocentric tendencies extend to their
groups. The individual goes from "I am right!" to "We are
right!" To put this another way, people find that
they can often best satisfy their egocentric desires through a group.

"Group think" results when people egocentrically
attach themselves to a group. One can see this in both children and adults: My
daddy is better than your daddy! My school (religion, country, race, etc.) is
better than yours. Uncritical thinkers often confuse loyalty with always
supporting and agreeing, even when the other person or the group is wrong.

If egocentricity and sociocentricity
are the disease, self-awareness is the cure. We need to become aware of our own
tendency to confuse our view with "The Truth". People can often
recognize when someone else is egocentric. Most of us can identify the sociocentricity of members of opposing groups. Yet when we
ourselves are thinking egocentrically or sociocentrically,
it seems right to us (at least at the time).

Our belief in our own rightness is easier to maintain
because we ignore the faults in our thinking. We automatically hide our
egocentricity from ourselves. We fail to notice when our behavior contradicts
our self-image. We base our reasoning on false assumptions we are unaware of
making. We fail to make relevant distinctions (of which we are otherwise aware
and able to make) when making them prevents us from getting what we want. We
deny or conveniently "forget" facts that do not support our
conclusions. We often misunderstand or distort what others say.

The solution, then, is to reflect on our reasoning and
behavior; to make our beliefs explicit, critique them, and, when they are
false, stop making them; to apply the same concepts in the same ways to
ourselves and others; to consider every relevant fact, and to make our conclusions
consistent with the evidence; and to listen carefully and openmindedly
to others.

We can change egocentric tendencies when we see them for
what they are: irrational and unjust. The development of children's awareness
of their egocentric and sociocentric patterns of
thought is a crucial part of education in critical thinking. This development
will be modest at first but can grow considerably over time.

S-3 Exercising Fairmindedness

Principle: To think critically, we must be able to consider
the strengths and weaknesses of opposing points of view; to imaginatively put
ourselves in the place of others in order to genuinely understand them; to
overcome our egocentric tendency to identify truth with our immediate
perceptions or long-standing thought or belief.

This trait is linked to the ability to accurately
reconstruct the viewpoints and reasoning of others and to reason from premises,
assumptions, and ideas other than our own. This trait also requires the
willingness to remember occasions when we were wrong in the past despite an
intense conviction that we were right, as well as the ability to imagine our
being similarly deceived in a case at hand. Critical thinkers realize the
unfairness of judging unfamiliar ideas until they fully understand them.

The world consists of many societies and peoples with many
different points of view and ways of thinking. To develop as reasonable
persons, we need to enter into and think within the frameworks and ideas of
different peoples and societies.

We cannot truly understand the world if we think about it
only from one viewpoint, as Americans, as Italians, or as Soviets. Furthermore,
critical thinkers recognize that their behavior affects others, and so consider
their behavior from the perspective of those others.

Principle: Although it is common to separate thought and
feeling as though they were independent, opposing forces in the human mind, the
truth is that virtually all human feelings are based on some level of thought
and virtually all thought generative of some level of feeling. To think with
self-understanding and insight, we must come to terms with the intimate
connections between thought and feeling, reason and emotion.

Critical thinkers realize that their feelings are their
response (but not the only possible, or even necessarily the most reasonable
response) to a situation. They know that their feelings would be different if
they had a different understanding or interpretation of the situation.

They recognize that thoughts and feelings, far from being
different kinds of "things", are two aspects of their responses.
Uncritical thinkers see little or no relationship between their feelings and
their thoughts, and so escape responsibility for their thoughts, feelings, and
actions. Their own feelings often seem unintelligible to them.

When we feel sad or depressed, it is often because we are
interpreting our situation in an overly negative or pessimistic light. We may
be forgetting to consider positive aspects of our lives.

We can better understand our feelings by asking ourselves,
"How have I come to feel this way? How am I looking at the situation? To
what conclusion have I come? What is my evidence? What assumptions am I making?
What inferences am I making? Are they sound inferences? Do my conclusions make
sense? Are there other ways to interpret this situation?"

We can learn to seek patterns in our assumptions, and so
begin to see the unity behind our separate emotions. Understanding ourselves is
the first step toward self-control and self-improvement. This
self-understanding requires that we understand our feelings and emotions in
relation to our thoughts, ideas, and interpretations of the world.

S-5 Developing Intellectual Humility and
Suspending Judgment

Principle: Critical thinkers recognize the limits of their
knowledge. They are sensitive to circumstances in which their native
egocentricity is likely to function self-deceptively; they are sensitive to
bias, prejudice, and limitations of their views. Intellectual humility is based
on the recognition that one should not claim more than one actually knows. It
does not imply spinelessness or submissiveness.

It implies the lack of intellectual pretentiousness,
arrogance, or conceit. It implies insight into the foundations of one's
beliefs: knowing what evidence one has, how one has come to believe,
what further evidence one might look for or examine. Thus, critical thinkers
distinguish what they know from what they don't know. They are not afraid of
saying "I don't know" when they are not in a position to be sure.

They can make this distinction because they habitually ask
themselves, "How could one know whether or not this is true?" To say
"In this case I must suspend judgment until I find out x and y", does
not make them anxious or uncomfortable. They are willing to rethink conclusions
in the light of new knowledge. They qualify their claims appropriately.

In exposing children to concepts within a field of
knowledge, we can help them see how all concepts depend on other, more basic
concepts and how each field is based on fundamental assumptions which need to
be examined, understood, and justified. The class should often explore the
connections between specific details and basic concepts or principles. We can
help children discover experiences in their own lives which help support or
justify what a text says. We should always be willing to entertain student
doubts about what a text says. Judgment

S-6 Developing Intellectual Courage

Principle: To think independently and fairly, one must feel
the need to face and fairly deal with unpopular ideas, beliefs, or viewpoints.
The courage to do so arises when we see that ideas considered dangerous or
absurd are sometimes rationally justified (in whole or in part) and that
conclusions or beliefs inculcated in us are sometimes false or misleading.

To determine for ourselves which is which, we must not
passively and uncritically accept what we have "learned". We need
courage to admit the truth in some ideas considered dangerous and absurd, and
the distortion or falsity in some ideas strongly held in our social group. It
will take courage to be true to our own thinking, for honestly questioning our
deeply held beliefs can be difficult and sometimes frightening, and the
penalties for non-conformity are often severe. Judgment

S-7 Developing Intellectual Good
Faith or Integrity

Principle: Critical thinkers recognize the need to be true
to their own thought, to be consistent in the intellectual standards they
apply, to hold themselves to the same rigorous standards of evidence and proof
to which they hold others, to practice what they advocate for others, and to
honestly admit discrepancies and inconsistencies in their own thought and
action. They believe most strongly what has been justified by their own thought
and analyzed experience.

They have a commitment to bringing the self they are and the
self they want to be together. People in general are often inconsistent in
their application of standards once their ego is involved positively or
negatively. For instance, when people like us, we tend to over-estimate their
positive characteristics; when they dislike us, we tend to underrate them

S-8 Developing Intellectual
Perseverance

Principle: Becoming a more critical thinker is not easy. It
takes time and effort. Critical thinking is reflective and recursive; that is,
we often think back to previous problems to re-consider or re-analyze them.
Critical thinkers are willing to pursue intellectual insights and truths in
spite of difficulties, obstacles, and frustrations.

They recognize the need to struggle with confusion and
unsettled questions over time in order to achieve deeper understanding and
insight. They recognize that significant change requires patience and hard
work. Important issues often require extended thought, research, struggle. Considering a new view takes time. Yet people are
often impatient to "get on with it" when they most need to slow down
and think carefully.

People rarely define issues or problems clearly; concepts
are often left vague; related issues are not sorted out, etc. When people don't
understand a problem or situation, their reactions and solutions often compound
the original problem. Children need to gain insight into the need for
intellectual perseverance.

S-9 Developing Confidence in Reason

Principle: The rational person recognizes the power of
reason and the value of disciplining thinking in accordance with rational
standards. Virtually all of the progress that has been made in science and
human knowledge testifies to this power, and so to the reasonability of having
confidence in reason.

To develop this faith in reason is to come to see that
ultimately one's own higher interests and those of humankind at large will best
be served by giving the freest play to reason, by encouraging people to come to
their own conclusions through a process of developing their own rational
faculties.

It is to reject force and trickery as standard ways of
changing another's mind. It is to believe that, with proper encouragement and
cultivation, people can develop the ability to think for themselves, to form
reasonable points of view, draw reasonable conclusions, think clearly and
logically, persuade each other by reason and, ultimately, become reasonable
persons, despite the deep-seated obstacles in the native character of the human
mind and in society as we know it.

This confidence is essential to building a democracy in
which people come to genuine rule, rather than being manipulated by the mass media,
special interests, or by the inner prejudices, fears, and irrationalities that
so easily and commonly dominate human minds.

You should note that the act of faith we are recommending is
not blind faith, but should be tested in everyday experiences and academic
work. In other words, we should have confidence in reason because reason works.
Confidence in reason does not deny the reality of intuition; rather, it
provides a way of distinguishing intuition from prejudice. When we know the
source of our thinking and keep our minds open to new reason and evidence, we
will be more likely to correct our prejudiced thought.

At the heart of this principle of faith in reason is the
desire to make sense of the world and the expectation that sense can be made.
Texts often don't make sense to children, sometimes because what they say
doesn't make sense, more often because children aren't
given time to make sense out of what they are told.

Being continually called upon to "master" what
seems nonsensical undermines the feeling that one can make sense of the world.
Many children, rushed through mountains of material, give up on this early.
("If I try to make sense of this, I'll never finish. Trying to really
understand just slows me down. Nobody expects me to make sense of this; they
just want me to do it.")

12.2Cognitive Strategies - Macro-Abilities

S-10 Refining Generalizations and Avoiding
Oversimplifications

Principle: It is natural to seek to simplify problems and
experiences to make them easier to deal with. Everyone does this. However, the
uncritical thinker often oversimplifies and as a result misrepresents problems
and experiences.

What should be recognized as complex, intricate, ambiguous,
or subtle is viewed as simple, elementary, clear, and obvious. For example, it
is typically an oversimplification to view people or groups as all good or all
bad, actions as always right or always wrong, one contributing factor as the
cause, etc., and yet such beliefs are common.

Critical thinkers try to find simplifying patterns and
solutions, but not by misrepresentation or distortion. Seeing the difference
between useful simplifications and misleading oversimplifications is important
to critical thinking.

Critical thinkers scrutinize generalizations, probe for
possible exceptions, and then use appropriate qualifications. Critical thinkers
are not only clear, but also exact and precise. One of the strongest tendencies
of the egocentric, uncritical mind is to see things in terms of black and
white, "all right" and "all wrong". Hence, beliefs which
should be held with varying degrees of certainty are held as certain. Critical
thinkers are sensitive to this problem.

They understand the important relationship of evidence to belief
and so qualify their statements accordingly. The tentativeness of many of their
beliefs is characterized by the appropriate use of such qualifiers as 'highly
likely', 'probably', 'not very likely', 'highly unlikely', 'often', 'usually',
'seldom', 'I doubt', 'I suspect', 'most', 'many', and 'some'.

Principle: An idea's power is limited by our ability to use
it. Critical thinkers' ability to use ideas mindfully enhances their ability to
transfer ideas critically. They practice using ideas and insights by
appropriately applying them to new situations. This allows them to organize
materials and experiences in different ways, to compare and contrast
alternative labels, to integrate their understanding of different situations,
and to find useful ways to think about new situations.

Every time we use an insight or principle, we increase our
understanding of both the insight and the situation to which we have applied
it. True education provides for more than one way to organize material. For
example, history can be organized in our minds by geography, chronology, or by
such phenomena as repeated patterns, common situations, analogous
"stories", and so on. The truly educated person is not trapped by one
organizing principle, but can take knowledge apart and put it together many
different ways. Each way of organizing knowledge has some benefit.

Principle: The world is not given to us sliced up into
categories with pre-assigned labels on them. There are always many ways to
"divide up" and so experience the world. How we do so is essential to
our thinking and behavior. Uncritical thinkers assume that their perspective on
things is the only correct one. Selfish critical thinkers manipulate the
perspectives of others to gain advantage for themselves.

Fairminded critical thinkers learn
to recognize that their own ways of thinking and that of all other perspectives
are some combination of insight and error. They learn to develop their points
of view through a critical analysis of their experience.

They learn to question commonly accepted ways of
understanding things and avoid uncritically accepting the viewpoints of their
peers or society. They know what their perspectives are and can talk
insightfully about them. To do this, they must create and explore their own
beliefs, their own reasoning, and their own theories.

S-13 Clarifying Issues, Conclusions,
or Beliefs

Principle: The more completely, clearly, and accurately an
issue or statement is formulated, the easier and more helpful the discussion of
its settlement or verification. Given a clear statement of an issue, and prior
to evaluating conclusions or solutions, it is important to recognize what is
required to settle it. And before we can agree or disagree with a claim, we
must understand it clearly.

It makes no sense to say "I don't know what you mean,
but I deny it, whatever it is." Critical thinkers recognize problematic
claims, concepts, and standards of evaluation, making sure that understanding
precedes judgment. They routinely distinguish facts from interpretations,
opinions, judgments, or theories. They can then raise those questions most
appropriate to understanding and evaluating each.

S-14 Clarifying and Analyzing the
Meanings of Words or Phrases

Principle: Critical, independent thinking requires clarity
of thought. A clear thinker understands concepts and knows what kind of
evidence is required to justify applying a word or phrase to a situation. The
ability to supply a definition is not proof of understanding. One must be able
to supply clear, obvious examples and use the concept appropriately. In
contrast, for an unclear thinker, words float through the mind unattached to
clear, specific, concrete cases. Distinct concepts are confused.

Often the only criterion for the application of a term is
that the case in question "seems like" an example. Irrelevant
associations are confused with what are necessary parts of the concept (e.g.,
"Love involves flowers and candlelight.") Unclear thinkers lack
independence of thought because they lack the ability to analyze a concept, and
so critique its use.

Principle: Critical thinkers realize that expressing mere
preference does not substitute for evaluating something. Awareness of the
process or components of evaluating facilitates thoughtful and fairminded evaluation. This process requires developing and
using criteria or standards of evaluation, or making standards or criteria
explicit.

Critical thinkers are aware of the values on which they base
their judgments. They have clarified them and understand why they are values.
When developing criteria, critical thinkers should understand the object and
purpose of the evaluation, and what function the thing being evaluated is
supposed to serve. Critical thinkers take into consideration different points
of view when attempting to evaluate something.

S-16 Evaluating the Credibility of
Sources of Information

Principle: Critical thinkers recognize the importance of
using reliable sources of information. They give less weight to sources which
either lack a track record of honesty, are not in a position to know, or have a
vested interest in the issue. Critical thinkers recognize when there is more
than one reasonable position to be taken on an issue; they compare alternative
sources of information, noting areas of agreement; they analyze questions to determine
whether or not the source is in a position to know; and they gather more
information when sources disagree.

They recognize obstacles to gathering accurate and pertinent
information. They realize that preconception, for example, influences observation-that
we often see only what we expect to see and fail to notice things we aren't
looking for.

Principle: Critical thinkers can pursue an issue in depth,
covering various aspects in an extended process of thought or discussion. When
reading a passage, they look for issues and concepts underlying the claims
expressed. They come to their own understanding of the details they learn,
placing them in the larger framework of the subject and their overall
perspectives. They contemplate the significant issues and questions underlying
subjects or problems studied. They can move between basic underlying ideas and
specific details.

When pursuing a line of thought, they are not continually dragged
off the subject. They use important issues to organize their thought and are
not bound by the organization given by another. Each of the various subject
areas has been developed to clarify and settle questions peculiar to itself. (For example, history: How did the world come to be
the way it is now?) The teacher can use such questions to organize and unify
details covered in each subject.

Perhaps more important are basic questions everyone faces
about what people are like, the nature of right and wrong, how we know things,
and so on. Both general and subject-specific basic questions should be
repeatedly raised and used as a framework for organizing details children are
learning

Principle: Rather than carelessly agreeing or disagreeing
with a conclusion based on their preconceptions of what is true, critical
thinkers use analytic tools to understand the reasoning behind it and determine
its relative strengths and weaknesses. When analyzing arguments,critical thinkers recognize the importance of asking
for reasons and considering other views.

They are especially sensitive to possible strengths of
arguments that they disagree with, recognizing the tendency to ignore,
oversimplify, distort, or otherwise unfairly dismiss them. Critical thinkers
analyze questions and place conflicting arguments, interpretations, and
theories in opposition to one another, as a means of highlighting key concepts,
assumptions, implications, etc.

When giving or being given an interpretation, critical
thinkers, recognizing the difference between evidence and interpretation,
explore the assumptions on which interpretations are based and propose and
evaluate alternative interpretations for their relative strength. Autonomous
thinkers consider competing theories and develop their own theories.

S-19 Generating or Assessing
Solutions

Principle: Critical problem-solvers use everything available
to them to find the best solution they can. They evaluate solutions, not
independently of, but in relation to one another (since 'best' implies a
comparison).

They take the time to formulate problems clearly,
accurately, and fairly, rather than offering a sloppy, half-baked, or
self-serving description ("Susie's mean!" "This isn't going
well, how can we do it better?") and then
immediately leaping to solutions. They examine the causes of the problem at
length.

They reflect on such questions as, "What makes some
solutions better than others? What does the solution to this problem require?
What solutions have been tried for this and similar problems? With what results?" But alternative solutions are often
not given, they must be generated or thought up.

Critical thinkers must be creative thinkers as well,
generating possible solutions in order to find the best one. Very often a
problem persists, not because we can't tell which available solution is best,
but because the best solution has not yet been made available-no one has
thought of it yet.

Therefore, although critical thinkers use all available
information relevant to their problems, including solutions others have tried
in similar situations, they are flexible and imaginative, willing to try any
good idea whether it has been done before or not. Fairminded
thinkers take into account the interests of everyone affected by the problem
and proposed solutions. They are more committed to finding the best solution
than to getting their way. They approach problems realistically.

S-20 Analyzing or Evaluating Actions
and Policies

Principle: To develop one's perspective, one must analyze
actions and policies and evaluate them. Good judgment is best developed through
practice: judging behavior, explaining and justifying those judgments, hearing
alternative judgments and their justifications, and assessing judgments. When
evaluating the behavior of themselves and others, critical thinkers are aware
of the standards they use, so that these, too, can become objects of evaluation.

Critical thinkers examine the consequences of actions and
recognize these as fundamental to the standards for assessing behavior and
policy. Critical thinkers base their evaluations of behavior on assumptions
which they have reasoned through. They can articulate and rationally apply
principles.

S-21 Reading Critically: Clarifying
or Critiquing Texts

Principle: Critical thinkers read with a healthy skepticism.
But they do not doubt or deny until they understand. They clarify before they
judge. Since they expect intelligibility from what they read, they check and
double-check their understanding as they read. They do not mindlessly accept
nonsense. Critical readers ask themselves questions as they read, wonder about
the implications of, reasons for, examples of, and meaning and truth of the
material.

They do not approach written material as a collection of
sentences, but as a whole, trying out various interpretations until one fits
all of the work, rather than ignoring or distorting what doesn't fit their
interpretation. They realize that everyone is capable of making mistakes and
being wrong, including authors of textbooks.

They also realize that, since everyone has a point of view,
everyone sometimes leaves out some relevant information. No two authors would
write the same book or write from exactly the same perspective. Therefore,
critical readers recognize that reading a book is reading one limited
perspective on a subject and that more can be learned by considering other
perspectives.

S-22 Listening Critically: The Art of
Silent Dialogue

Principle: Critical thinkers realize that listening can be
done passively and uncritically or actively and critically. They know that it
is easy to misunderstand what is said by another and hard to integrate another's
thinking into one's own. Compare speaking and listening. When we speak, we need
only keep track of our own ideas, arranging them in some order, expressing
thoughts with which we are intimately familiar: our own.

But listening is more complex. We must take the words of
another and translate them into ideas that make sense to us. We have not had
the experiences of the speaker. We are not on the inside of his or her point of
view. When we listen to others, we can't anticipate, as they can themselves, where
their thoughts are leading them. We must continually interpret what others say
within the confines of our experiences. We must find a way to enter into their
points of view, shift our minds to follow their train of thought.

Consequently, we need to learn how to listen actively and
critically. We need to recognize that listening is an art involving skills that
we can develop only with time and practice. We must realize, for example, that
to listen and learn from what we are hearing, we need to learn to ask key
questions that enable us to locate ourselves in the thought of another:
"I'm not sure I understand you when you say..., could you explain that
further?" "Could you give me an example or illustration of
this?" "Would you also say ...?" "Let me see if I
understand you. What you are saying is... Is that right?" "How do you
respond to this objection?"

Critical readers ask questions as they read and use those
questions to orient themselves to what an author is saying. Critical listeners
ask questions as they listen to orient themselves to what a speaker is saying:
"Why does she say that? What examples could I give to illustrate that
point? What is the main point? How does this detail relate to the main point? That one? Is he using this word as I would, or somewhat
differently?" These highly skilled and activated processes are crucial to
learning. We need to heighten student awareness of and practice in them as
often as we can.

S-23 Making Interdisciplinary
Connections

Principle: Although in some ways it is convenient to divide
knowledge up into disciplines, the divisions are not absolute. Critical
thinkers do not allow the somewhat arbitrary distinctions between academic
subjects to control their thinking. When considering issues which transcend
subjects (and most real-life issues do), they bring relevant concepts,
knowledge, and insights from many subjects to the analysis.

They make use of insights from one subject to inform their
understanding of other subjects. There are always connections between subjects.
To understand, say, reasons for the American Revolution (historical question),
insights from technology, geography, economics, and philosophy can be
fruitfully applied.

Principle: Critical thinkers are nothing if not questioners.
The ability to question and probe deeply, to get down to root
ideas, to get beneath the mere appearance of things, is at the very heart of
the activity. And, as questioners, they have many different kinds of questions
and moves available and can follow up their questions appropriately.

They can use questioning techniques, not to make others look
stupid, but to learn what they think, help them develop their ideas, or as a
prelude to evaluating them. When confronted with a new idea, they want to
understand it, to relate it to their experience, and to determine its
implications, consequences, and value. They can fruitfully uncover the
structure of their own and others' perspectives. Probing questions are the
tools by which these goals are reached.

Furthermore, critical thinkers are comfortable being
questioned. They don't become offended, confused, or intimidated. They welcome
good questions as an opportunity to develop a line of thought.

Principle: Dialogical thinking refers to thinking that
involves a dialogue or extended exchange between different points of view.
Whenever we consider concepts or issues deeply, we naturally explore their
connections to other ideas and issues within different points of view.

Critical thinkers need to be able to engage in fruitful,
exploratory dialogue, proposing ideas, probing their roots, considering subject
matter insights and evidence, testing ideas, and moving between various points
of view. When we think, we often engage in dialogue, either inwardly or aloud
with others. We need to integrate critical thinking skills into that dialogue
so that it is as useful as possible. Socratic questioning is one form of
dialogical thinking.

Principle: Dialectical thinking refers to dialogical
thinking conducted in order to test the strengths and weaknesses of opposing
points of view. Court trials and debates are dialectical in intention. They pit
idea against idea, reasoning against counter-reasoning in order to get at the
truth of a matter. As soon as we begin to explore ideas, we find that some clash
or are inconsistent with others.

If we are to integrate our thinking, we need to assess which
of the conflicting ideas we will provisionally accept and which we shall
provisionally reject, or which parts of the views are strong and which weak, or
how the views can be reconciled.

Children need to develop dialectical reasoning skills, so
that their thinking not only moves comfortably between divergent points of view
or lines of thought, but also makes some assessments in light of the relative
strengths and weaknesses of the evidence or reasoning presented. Hence, when
thinking dialectically, critical thinkers can use critical micro-skills
appropriately.

12.3Cognitive Strategies - Micro-Skills

S-27 Comparing and Contrasting Ideals with Actual Practice

Principle: Self-improvement and social improvement are
presupposed values of critical thinking. Critical thinking, therefore, requires
an effort to see ourselves and others accurately. This requires recognizing
gaps between ideals and practice. The fairminded
thinker values truth and consistency and so works to minimize these gaps.

The confusion of facts with ideals prevents us from moving
closer to achieving our ideals. A critical education strives to highlight
discrepancies between facts and ideals, and proposes and evaluates methods for
minimizing them. This strategy is intimately connected with "developing
intellectual good faith".

S-28 Thinking Precisely About
Thinking: Using Critical Vocabulary

Principle: An essential requirement of critical thinking is the
ability to think about thinking, to engage in what is sometimes called "metacognition". One possible definition of critical
thinking is the art of thinking about your thinking while you're thinking in
order to make your thinking better: more clear, more accurate, more fair.

It is precisely at the level of "thinking about
thinking" that most critical thinking stands in contrast to uncritical
thinking. Critical thinkers can analyze thought-take it apart and put it
together again. For the uncritical thinker, thoughts are "just
there".

"I think what I think, don't ask me why." The
analytical vocabulary in the English language (such terms as 'assume', 'infer',
'conclude', 'criterion', 'point of view', 'relevance', 'issue', 'elaborate',
'ambiguous', 'objection', 'support', 'bias', 'justify', 'perspective',
'contradiction', 'consistent', 'credibility', 'evidence', 'interpret',
'distinguish') enables us to think more precisely about our thinking. We are in
a better position to assess reasoning (our own, as well as that of others) when
we can use analytic vocabulary with accuracy and ease.

S-29 Noting Significant Similarities
and Differences

Principle: Critical thinkers strive to treat similar things
similarly and different things differently. Uncritical thinkers, on the other
hand, often don't see significant similarities and differences. Things
superficially similar are often significantly different. Things superficially
different are often essentially the same.

Only through practice can we become sensitized to
significant similarities and differences. As we develop this sensitivity, it
influences how we experience, how we describe, how we categorize, and how we
reason about things. We become more careful and discriminating in our use of
words and phrases.

We hesitate before we accept this or that analogy or
comparison. We recognize the purposes of the comparisons we make. We recognize
that purposes govern the act of comparing and determine its scope and limits.

The hierarchy of categories biologists, for instance, use to
classify living things (with Kingdom as the most basic, all the way down to
sub-species) reflects biological judgment regarding which kinds of similarities
and differences between species are the most important biologically, that is,
which distinctions shed the most light on how each organism is structured and
lives.

To the zoologist, the similarities between
whales and horses is considered more important than their similarities
to fish. The differences between whales and fish are considered more
significant than differences between whales and horses. These distinctions suit
the biologists' purposes.

S-30 Examining or Evaluating
Assumptions

Principle: We are in a better position to evaluate any
reasoning or behavior when all of the elements of that reasoning or behavior
are made explicit. We base both our reasoning and our behavior on beliefs we
take for granted. We are often unaware of these assumptions. Only by
recognizing them can we evaluate them.

Critical thinkers have a passion for truth and for accepting
the strongest reasoning. Thus, they have the intellectual courage to seek out
and reject false assumptions. They realize that everyone makes some
questionable assumptions. They are willing to question, and have others
question, even their own most cherished assumptions. They consider alternative
assumptions.

They base their acceptance or rejection of assumptions on
their rational scrutiny of them. They hold questionable assumptions with an
appropriate degree of tentativeness. Independent thinkers evaluate assumptions
for themselves, and do not simply accept the
assumptions of others, even those assumptions made by everyone they know.

S-31 Distinguishing Relevant From
Irrelevant Facts

Principle: To think critically, we must be able to tell the
difference between those facts which are relevant to an issue and those which
are not. Critical thinkers focus their attention on relevant facts and do not
let irrelevant considerations affect their conclusions. Whether or not
something is relevant is often unclear; relevance must often be argued.
Furthermore, a fact is only relevant or irrelevant in relation to an issue.
Information relevant to one problem may not be relevant to another.

S-32 Making Plausible Inferences,
Predictions, or Interpretations

Principle: Thinking critically involves the ability to reach
sound conclusions based on observation and information. Critical thinkers
distinguish their observations from their conclusions. They look beyond the
facts, to see what those facts imply. They know what the concepts they use
imply.

They also distinguish cases in which they can only guess
from cases in which they can safely conclude. Critical thinkers recognize their
tendency to make inferences that support their own egocentric or sociocentric world views and are therefore especially
careful to evaluate inferences they make when their interests or desires are
involved. Remember, every interpretation is based on inference, and we
interpret every situation we are in.

S-33 Giving Reasons and Evaluating Evidence and Alleged
Facts

Principle: Critical thinkers can take their reasoning apart
in order to examine and evaluate its components. They know on what evidence
they base their conclusions. They realize that un-stated, unknown reasons can
be neither communicated nor critiqued. They are comfortable being asked to give
reasons; they don't find requests for reasons intimidating, confusing, or
insulting.

They can insightfully discuss evidence relevant to the issue
or conclusions they consider. Not everything offered as evidence should be
accepted. Evidence and factual claims should be scrutinized and evaluated.
Evidence can be complete or incomplete, acceptable, questionable, or false.

S-34 Recognizing Contradictions

Principle: Consistency is a fundamental-some would say the
defining-ideal of critical thinkers. They strive to remove contradictions from
their beliefs, and are wary of contradictions in others. As would-be fairminded thinkers they strive to judge like cases in a
like manner.

Perhaps the most difficult form of consistency to achieve is
that between word and deed. Self-serving double standards are one of the most
common problems in human life. Children are in some sense aware of the
importance of consistency. ("Why don't I get to do what they get to
do?") They are frustrated by double standards, yet are given little help
in getting insight into them and dealing with them.

Critical thinkers can pinpoint specifically where opposing
arguments or views contradict each other, distinguishing the contradictions
from compatible beliefs, thus focusing their analyses of conflicting views.

S-35 Exploring Implications and
Consequences

Principle: Critical thinkers can take statements, recognize
their implications-what follows from them-and develop a fuller, more complete
understanding of their meaning. They realize that to accept a statement one
must also accept its implications. They can explore both implications and
consequences at length. When considering beliefs that relate to actions or
policies, critical thinkers assess the consequences of acting on those beliefs.